Developing Expertise In Pool

ShootingArts said:

Genetics not mattering would be news to the horse breeding world. It has been based on genetics for a couple thousand years. I'll have to tell people spending hundreds of thousands on horses that they can buy a few thousand dollar horse and get the same results. It happens, but only one time in thousands. Even then, the genetics are there. A draft horse will never outrun a running bred thoroughbred or quarterhorse no matter how you train it from birth. Hook the horses to a few tons of weight and the speed horses can't compete with the draft horse. Genetics.

Hu

Click to expand...

Going back over the posts in this thread I’m reminded of the reality that there are no right or wrong answers. Many are very limited, being true only in a singular perspective. Every response I made here was also limited. For example when addressing the perspective of natural player ability I quoted Joe Davis as an example of someone going from a self described no talent to world Champion. The original post citing Jackie Stewart as having no special physical reaction time advantage is another. Building myelin through practice, the benefit of deliberate practice and other insights other than genetics are just that, perspectives and realities that limit the extent to which genetics is a factor. For one thing, this is a game, not a sport. On the genetics side, endurance in long matches or clawing through the loser’s side can be a factor.

As to the thoroughbred example, the blind man, the physically challenged and other factors like age make a difference. Countering the many reasons that players state are in their mind, of what may be setting the better players apart from themselves, may be true, or they may be justifications, excuses. We have a choice, to minimize the differences, maximize them or ignore them.

I’m reminded of the definition of a potential upset. It was that if the superior player has his worst game and the lesser player his best, the formula for an upset is a victory for the lesser player. If I played tennis against any tennis pro, there would be no upset.

Some of the comments here that may seem negative are just perspectives, reality checks like the upset formula. Expectations need to be real otherwise frustration and anger become the reality checks.

Each response I made to comments were also just countering perspectives or additions, not criticism, and not a total reality either. Keeping things real was the intent. Each beg the question of "where do I go from here?"

As cogently stated by Low500 this is about what works for the individual player. This post just gives us a rack of ideas to try on and see what fits, for us.

Take a ride on the balls

kevoka said:

This reminds me of how Einstein developed the theory of relativity. He asked himself the question of what things would look like if he was a surfer riding a wave of light.

Click to expand...

The thought experiment idea represented by the Einstein example has been a revelation in so many ways. Take a ride on the cue ball. Imagine hitting another ball at an angle. The side contacted stalls because of the impact sending the other side which still has momentum forward but still attached to the contact part. The result is the rotation of the ball around its center of mass. In simple terms every ball hitting a ball at an angle is met by a force that that will generate outside side on the impacting ball. That ball now contacting a rail after the ball to ball contact will either speed up or slow down in response to the outside side.

Now try the same thought experiment and this time imagine enough inside side on the cue ball to counter the force which would normally result in outside side. The countering negates the forces and the cueball leaves contact without any side rotation. That ball contacting a rail will neither slow down or speed up. Our ride into the rail simply changes direction. Speed into the rail = speed off the rail.

Now take that ride off multiple rails. Imagine a half ball cue ball 2 cushion shot off contact. With the end cushion being the first rail and a long rail next, a normal shot acquires outside side off the object ball contact. The angle off the first rail is flattened meaning the angle off the second rail is sharpened. Imagine that shot traveling at a diagonal through the center table to the opposite side of the table.

Now take a ride on the cue ball with the same setup. This time a small amount of inside side removes the outside english into the first rail. This time the angle off the first rail is natural. The contact off that first rail causes the cue ball to acquire outside english but a lesser amount, not cumulative. The cue ball travel now flattens off the second rail, not the first. The cue ball now travels along the second rail instead of diagonally across the table.

Imagination is definitely a key differentiator as the Filipino players creative play over the years has demonstrated.

Good addition to player thinking. Thanks.

Patrick Johnson said:

Visualizing these details is good for your understanding and play, alright.

A slight refinement: a ball’s speed is slowed by the rail even without “check” spin - because the cushion absorbs some energy. The extreme example is a ball hitting the rail perpendicularly - it rebounds at about 1/2 to 2/3 of it’s incoming speed (depending on whether it’s sliding or rolling going in).

pj
chgo

Click to expand...

Of course, you’re right. The ball doesn’t actually have to hit a rail. It’s slowing down anyway, even on an open table. Like everything description is not reality. This is just a relative thing. Our "feel" factors some of this in, just not consciously, for most of us. My experience notices that without check side, my cue ball ends up farther off the rail. My internal sense of pace notes that without outside side, speeding it up, the cue ball overruns, are less frequent. My cueing pace can be more consistent from shot to shot relatively, based more on the distance the ball needs to travel. Your observed fact, about rails slowing ball pace, is true and consistent on all shots where the cue ball has no side spin. It’s harder to notice rail dissipation of momentum with side spin because that has a more dramatic visible impact on rail contact.

kevoka said:

I believe the best teachers are the ones who explain the underlying principle and then expose you to a myriad of ways to skin the cat. Then they help you find the method of that works for you (via testing and practice).

For example - aiming systems. In the end, they all are designed to accomplish the exact same result. What varies a great deal is how an individual person can visualize everything to accomplish it. A good teacher will describe multiple systems so that the pupil can find one (or two or 3) that works for them.

Click to expand...

There is no meaning without context. Each context has its own unique set of criteria. While evaluations and details differ from situation to situation, principles don’t. Principles are present across all comparable contexts.

Aiming is one such principle. It’s required on every shot. The contact points on the object ball that send the ball into the various parts of the pocket are the universal target, another principle. As a targeting game, pool needs a target and a method to aim. Starting with the contact point as the target led to the ghost ball concept. A simplified physics elasticity model, which would work in space, is mathematically true. But there is a hitch. We are not playing in space.

That hasn’t stopped it from being the simplified principle around which aiming systems are based. Ironically it’s the failure of center ball/ghost ball that has given birth to those same alternative systems. As was stated all systems have the same objective. The universal problem with that model combination is throw. Rather than deal with the throw, systems try to work around it.

Dr. Dave has given us a wealth of information about actual on table results. He did a number of experiments to try to gain insight. First he documented that a center struck cue ball without any rotation, on object ball contact, had virtually a different amount of throw for each angle contacted. Throw amounts ranged from zero to nearly 6° of throw. The amount of throw differed based on speed of contact as well. So if a ball without rotation offers no helpful insights where do you look next?

To put degrees of throw in context let’s put it in inches over distance. A single degree of throw on an object ball 5 feet from the pocket is about 1 inch. A soft half ball stun shot at that distance generates throw of 5 ½ to 6 inches. At 2 ½ feet, a relatively short distance, throw is half of that. A ball aimed pocket center, on such a shot, is off at least a ball width. Remove the stun and a rolling ball is off over 4 inches at 5 feet and over 2 inches at half that. And this is under clean conditions.

Back to Dr. Dave’s, clean lab conditions and we find that he also looked at varying side spin only, no cut, still skidding.
Here is what he found:
Regardless of speed, the same amount of English resulted in the same amount of throw.
As the amount of english approaches zero so does the amount of throw. A very small amount of side has very little throw.

Now for a cue ball only factor, deflection. When deflection from side was calibrated, the same thing was experienced. The less side the less deflection.

Additionally, effects with side alone were tested, no vertical rotation. Once again a skidding ball generated different amounts of throw based on differing angles and differing amounts of side. However, a rotating ball, in this case turning horizontally, on average, lessened the amount of throw compared to one that had no turn. A moving slippery surface gained less traction from friction.

Next a ball with both vertical and horizontal rotation and medium speed was tested. Maximum throw was determined to occur with 50% english, so that was the baseline tested. Both inside and outside english were tested across a wide range of cut angles. A rotating ball, this time vertically, even on no english shots, generated less throw. Across the range tested one thing stuck out. A ball rotating vertically with maximum inside throwing english (50%), consistently only generated about 1° of throw, across all angles tested, when medium speed was used.

Dr, Dave also revealed that outside gearing english using a 40% rule can virtually eliminate throw on shots, including stun shots.

Since the initial problem with the universally used reference, the ghost ball line, as an aiming system, was throw, how do these findings line up?

The question this should generate relates to the original issue, throw is a problem in the ghost ball aiming reference system. Should the player look at ways to minimize the throw problem or try to devise an aiming system as a work around?

How would you apply this information, as a student, looking at options?
How and to whom should an instructor present this information and to what end?

Sharivari said:

I think the key is to identify the weak parts of your game. And that is not always as easy as it sounds. Some thngs are pretty obvious, because you have a desired outcome and if you fail you know that you're doing something wrong.

But some parts aren't that obvious. How for example should you know that you are making strategic errors if you don't know what the right way is.

So yes, identifiy the weak parts and then try to get as much knowledge and practice for that part of your game. Just my personal opinion of course.

Click to expand...

Your reply elicited a mixed internal response. Research into whether to point out mistakes then fix them found that revisiting them hurt performance. That said a mindset of what single thing could you incrementally improve, each session, helped focus practice and has a proven track record for long term development.

The lesson that my personal philosophy took from these was about the kinds of questions we ask ourselves. The mind is amazing. We can give it a question and it will generate a million different potential answers. This is also a two edge sword, be careful what you ask for. Asking what you did wrong when you miss a shot or an element can be a minefield. The mind will generate a multitude of ways you could mishit a ball to end up with that result. Problem is the brain often doesn’t distinguish that well between the real and imagined. When harnessed it allows elite performers to mentally rehearse a performance, a great application. Having said that imagining ways to fail is not a path to fixing failures.

The quiet eye, decision training program developed by a Joan Vickers and used in developing Olympic athletes, surgeons, first responders and the military is a departure from behaviorist coaching. Your development of video resources fits well within that framework. The high use of video is accompanied by a skilled coach/analyst helping the player to recognize situations. Situation recognition is essential at all levels and types of development. It goes beyond choosing a path for position and pattern planning, to strategy and tactics. All aspects of the game are taught along with the physical development.

The player needs to become self sufficient. That means being able to make adjustments during performance, self coaching. Without a firm grounding in all aspects the player cannot even decide what to work on in practice, let alone on the fly during competition. This creates a too high dependence on the teacher/mentor and stalls self sufficiency and self coaching.

The snooker great Joe Davis credited his ability to out pace naturally gifted players by saying he was a horrible beginner. He had to learn how to learn and when players got to the point where natural gifts wouldn’t take them to the next level, they plateau and often never progress. They had never had to learn how to learn and stalled out.

Your comment at the end points to just that process of learning. Finding the resources needed, then deciding how to apply them, is definitely a difference maker.

Don’t accept a limitation, do something about it.

Thanks for the valuable insight.

duckie said:

The only way throw is a problem with Ghostball is if the player didn’t account for it.

Click to expand...

When you "account for it", that’s a workaround. It’s a systematic adjustment based on some kind of evaluation. Experience or knowledge are two references. Whatever you decide is the most important situationally is true for you.

Comments like

duckie said:

Your statement shows how little you know about aiming.

Click to expand...

Basically claim that your references and hierarchy of importance about aiming are the pinnacle of pool knowledge and that anyone who deviates "shows how little they know about aiming."

duckie said:

There is no method that can account for throw. The adjustment for throw comes from the player and their experiences at the table.

Click to expand...

Dismissing the Dr. Dave lab as some fantasyland of data mostly irrelevant in everyday play, is your loss. Picking a particular One Pocket scenario in your head and not finding a relevant answer at the table from the "lab", may not be a reflection of the lab but an ability to decipher.

duckie said:

Anyway.........question everything, only accept what makes sense.....

Click to expand...

This should be a principle for learning anything. Interpretations can differ from the same information.

I remember a story of an agricultural researcher used to illustrate the issue. The researcher took a grasshopper and simply told it to jump. It was startled and jumped. The distance was measured. A leg was removed and once again the command given, "jump". A shorter distance was recorded. Each leg was removed until the grasshopper no longer moved on command.

The report conclusion was that grasshoppers without legs are deaf.

The story was about interpretation can be faulty, not the data.

In a sidebar, the story has an odd secondary lesson.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/n...at-hears-like-a-human-with-ears-on-its-knees/

"question everything" is the important lesson here.

duckie said:

There is no method that can account for throw. The adjustment for throw comes from the player and their experiences at the table.

Click to expand...

Let’s start here.

Dr. Dave showed that balls hit with an easily calculated outside gearing english, travelled along the ghost ball line, no throw. That is a "method that can account for throw." That is not a workaround, it’s a workthrough. It uses physics to generate the elasticity model result, removing the throw factor. It works on both rotating and skidding balls.

Of course, clean lab conditions aren’t most table conditions. Each table, set of balls, humidity and temperature conditions vary. The point is that even experience can’t tell you how much cigar ash Big Freddie dropped on the table last night. The best we can do is lessen the effect.

In another experiment Dr. Dave showed that a medium paced shot with vertical rotation (follow or draw) and inside side only generated ~1° of throw on all angles tested. Now you don’t need a wealth of experience and workarounds to pocket the ball, just good mechanics.

A spinning or rotating ball lessens the effect of throw is another lesson from the lab, as does hitting the ball harder.

As BC21 stated "it's good to work on accurately estimating angles..". There is an element of forgiveness on many shots, especially short shots. Many of those same shots are not as forgiving concerning how far the cue ball travels. The difference between a fat pocket hit or a thin pocket hit could vary by half a table travel or more of the cue ball.

Question everything carefully and consider the source.

Difference that makes a difference

Imac007 said:

As players strive to get better they focus on the fundamentals, but is that the path to being an expert? They say elite athlete’s advancement lies in their ability to make finer and finer distinctions. Skiers learn to differentiate between types of snow, current weather effects, how packed it is and then minute shifts in the edges and placement of weight on the skis to make high speed adjustments. Where most race car drivers focus on the 3 basic parts of a turn, entry, apex and exit, and think 2 corners ahead, world renowned driver, Jackie Stewart, when tested, focused only on the current turn, it’s details and his descriptions and fMRI results showed he segmented turns into 8 parts. He knew the devil was in the details. Breaking down the skill into minute awareness bits allowed him to find the small ways he could gain time on his opponents. When tested he didn’t show better reaction time than other drivers. He learned where to focus to get his edge.

The question players, who want to take their game to the next level, need to ask themselves is "what part of what I’m doing can give me an incremental advantage."

What do you think is the primary area, of finer distinctions, that most likely will lead to expertise in pool?

Click to expand...

The shot is composed of two parts, pocketing and position. A pro golfer, Rory?, when asked why his putting was so hot at the time, talked about how his ability to send the putt on a precise line, freed up his mind to focus on the pace. The two part aspect in pool is really no different. Sometimes the pace of the shot is not an issue, like on a stop shot, so nearly all our focus can be on pocketing precision. The Jackie Stewart example in the original post is just such a differentiator.

Dividing the pocket into targeting segments is key especially when the object ball is close to the hole. It’s easy to get lazy. The ball is easily pocketed but often the precise angle into the pocket is important for positioning. We understand the idea of cheating the pocket to avoid following a ball into the pocket. We also do it to create an angle into the rail for position. Too often on simple shots I see players planning to come away from the cushion a short distance but ending up on or near the rail having hit the ball fat, or reaching a bit to cut a ball in and the tip rises as the grip dips near the table. The unintended follow combined with a slight overcut can send the cue ball feet past its intended position.

This points to two areas at least where a Jackie Stewart mindset, precise targeting of the pocket area and a precision contact on the cue ball can set a player apart. Watching a player like Ronnie O’Sullivan you see him frequently checking his tip. That is what connects us to the shot. Knowing and sensing the exact part of the rounded tip making contact on the ball’s rounded surface is a start, awareness. The precise height, angle of contact and horizontal relationship to the center of mass can set apart players in their ability to control whitey. The description of the ball feeling like it’s on a string by a player in stroke reminds us that without that connectedness control is difficult.

The shot is more than each part, it’s the combination of the two. The whole makes up the magic. Each has its own place and our focus needs to transition between the two sensing what’s needed then broaden once again to the whole shot finally falling quietly on the exact target needed for the shot and waiting for the body to do its thing.

Don’t become mesmerized by any one part or you’ll miss other components. Jackie Stewart experienced each part in its own time, letting go of each, to move on to the next, kept him in touch with what was happening and was needed.

Imac007 said:

As players strive to get better they focus on the fundamentals, but is that the path to being an expert? They say elite athlete’s advancement lies in their ability to make finer and finer distinctions. Skiers learn to differentiate between types of snow, current weather effects, how packed it is and then minute shifts in the edges and placement of weight on the skis to make high speed adjustments. Where most race car drivers focus on the 3 basic parts of a turn, entry, apex and exit, and think 2 corners ahead, world renowned driver, Jackie Stewart, when tested, focused only on the current turn, it’s details and his descriptions and fMRI results showed he segmented turns into 8 parts. He knew the devil was in the details. Breaking down the skill into minute awareness bits allowed him to find the small ways he could gain time on his opponents. When tested he didn’t show better reaction time than other drivers. He learned where to focus to get his edge.

The question players, who want to take their game to the next level, need to ask themselves is "what part of what I’m doing can give me an incremental advantage."

What do you think is the primary area, of finer distinctions, that most likely will lead to expertise in pool?

Click to expand...

I was thinking that a thread on discipline was needed. Reading the different definitions it soon became apparent that a bigger picture was needed. Discipline is about constraints. Discipline is about punishment, but all decision making has risk/reward, consequences. Then realization emerged, discipline was not the characteristic that rockets the elite into their orbit. The answer is the most human of traits, adaptation.

Adaptation sets us apart and enables us to survive, despite constraints. The rules fade into guidelines as we break them to get to new levels. It’s said that survival is our greatest instinct. Virginia Satir says it’s not. Our greatest instinct is for familiarity. At the first sign of threat we retreat into our familiar comfort zones. Adaptability is about realizing that we need to break the bond of the familiar. It’s how Louganis adjusted to get the perfect entry in the water despite a bad position at the top of the dive. It’s the adjusting that changes us making us more than we were before. Denise McCluggage’s "change is the only constant, holding on is the only sin", echo’s loudly here. In genetics the lesson is adapt or die. Rules become rules of thumb, guidelines no longer set in stone. The training wheels are off and the wheels of creativity are found in their place. Imagination, not threat drives us forward. Taking limitation and inching beyond its boundaries is adaptation, not letting it define us. Pushing the envelope to make us more than we are, and even more tomorrow. It contains hope not disappointment. It contains the concept of "yet". I may not be able to do something - yet.

Believing in and harnessing that most human of abilities, adaptability, is the difference maker. It takes us to the 626’s and beyond. Feats like that, a thousand centuries, 4 minute miles, etc, litter the side of the road of time as progress inches forward. They become shrines to where adaptation can take us.

Relentless progress, the smallest improvement is key. A concept "Kaizen" from the Japanese, means ongoing improvement. It forms the basis for many successful endeavors. Adaptation is more, it’s the inching progress plus innovation. Holding onto old progress and hoping to add to it is not enough. Thinking outside the box is often thought of as the wellspring of creativity. While new ideas can come from outside, the McGyver in us needs to emerge. While we stretch our capability we need to recognize the untapped potential inside the box. Creativity often comes from having to make things work with what we have.

Letting ourselves evolve, getting out of our own way can be hard. We need to let go of what worked yesterday and persevere through the unfamiliar that isn’t "yet" giving us that little bit more. It’s patience with the process so we can come out the other end as more.

napacunningham said:

What has helped me most in my skill development is drills. Today I'm a 505 fargo which, I think, puts me as low intermediate (4 months ago was 475). Drills help me more than anything with cue ball angles off the object ball, and cue ball speed control.

I think another thing that helps us is thinking of pool as a sport. That makes us all athletes and athletes train far different than a bar room pool player - and even most league players.

This link https://www.ertheo.com/blog/en/mindfulness-meditation-for-athletes/ talks about "Flow" which is similar to being in the zone. It talks about things like challenge (which take us to the next level), feedback (either from a coach, or missing shots to show areas we need to improve), goals, focus, and more.

Flow (and exercise) is the next thing I'm trying to see if it has an impact on my quest to develop expertise in pool.

See you at the table,
Michael

Click to expand...

I started this thread just for people like you. Each player trying to improve is at a particular point in their development. By having a range of different areas that various players have considered important, the path to improvement starts to be made up of identified stepping stones.

Careful reading of the pages of posts here will show that drills have been mentioned and ideas around how to get the most out of the practice. Different philosophies concerning how to approach practices are found in the posts and places to look for further information.

It should be a worthwhile bunch of posts to sift through. Improvement like everything else is about what path to take next. Finding a good route can shorten the journey. Hopefully you can find a good road map here rather than having to put one together from diverse resources elsewhere.

Shot Keys

Imac007 said:

As players strive to get better they focus on the fundamentals, but is that the path to being an expert? They say elite athlete’s advancement lies in their ability to make finer and finer distinctions. Skiers learn to differentiate between types of snow, current weather effects, how packed it is and then minute shifts in the edges and placement of weight on the skis to make high speed adjustments. Where most race car drivers focus on the 3 basic parts of a turn, entry, apex and exit, and think 2 corners ahead, world renowned driver, Jackie Stewart, when tested, focused only on the current turn, it’s details and his descriptions and fMRI results showed he segmented turns into 8 parts. He knew the devil was in the details. Breaking down the skill into minute awareness bits allowed him to find the small ways he could gain time on his opponents. When tested he didn’t show better reaction time than other drivers. He learned where to focus to get his edge.

The question players, who want to take their game to the next level, need to ask themselves is "what part of what I’m doing can give me an incremental advantage."

What do you think is the primary area, of finer distinctions, that most likely will lead to expertise in pool?

Click to expand...

Each level of play has what I call a "sandbox" moment. In life we move on to the next level like when we graduated from the sandbox. Life moments, some ritualistic, others symbolic, signal our graduations. We finish a chapter and turn the page to start penning the story yet to come.

It starts with picking up a cue, learning to point it, sending a ball down a path and eventually to controlling a second ball. Each are their own analogous sandbox, once learned allowing us to focus on the next. We chunk them together into coordinated efforts we call stance, stroke, aiming etc. . The next steps in our dance at the table are the choreography called pre-shot routine. This starts to introduce the player to a timed, sequential process, habit development. It too is it’s own sandbox.

Once habits are developed the mInd can be freed to move on again. Problem is many players don’t know what should be next. There is comfort and predictability in the routine. One of our strongest instincts, if not the strongest is, instinctively gravitating towards, the familiar. Paradoxically while it seemingly offers safety and security, it keeps us "sandboxed".

Other sandboxing things are the bias and dogma that come from constraining the begInner. A Russian neuroscientist Nikolai Bernstein identified a problem in motor skill development. It concerned "degrees of freedom". In a nutshell, the human body’s ability to manipulate through joint and muscle complexity has the freedom to execute an action in multiple ways. The different possible ways use competing resources, so choices need to be made. Degrees of freedom need to be reduced, deciding on one, the others are constrained. Once constrained movements are simplified, freedom is allowed within the chosen bounds or parameters.

We tend to generalize things that work into other areas. The idea of constraints have moved beyond the physical into other areas, like planning, strategy and tactics. For example, the idea of center ball and ghost ball are constraints that have come to permeate other areas. The beginner isn’t yet ready to get into a larger sandbox including spin and advanced cueing dynamics, so we constrain . It doesn’t mean that that sandbox doesn’t exist or that players don’t need to eventually play in it with, the "big boys". But, the predictability and comfort of the familiar can be compelling and keep both students and instructors in that sandbox, a comfort zone.

Once students play with and become proficient with the various spin dynamics and other more advanced cueing techniques, it too is a sandbox. Each sandbox is larger enabling the toys and ideas from each to be brought into play in a more challenging playground. Constraints are like training wheels, eventually they should be taken off and set the player free.

So if all our attentional resources aren’t taken up by routines or the complexity of using advanced knowledge and techniques what is its role? In life in order to simplify, we categorize and generalize. We often label situations, that makes them easier to classify and work with. The immense memory and cognitive processing that would be needed to treat each unique situation as separate and discreet would be impossible. We need the organization to function. That said each shot on the table is ultimately unique. When we start to make finer and finer distinctions we are bringing the unique details back into awareness. Within that context we find an idea, "shot keys".

Jeremy Jones is a pool commentator. He and Jim Wych are two of the best and collaborated on much of the 2019 World 10 Ball Championship. These are two accomplished pool experts. Wych was once a top ranked snooker players and top veteran commentator while Jones adds commentary expertise to his pool knowledge, to make him arguably the best in the business. His ability to sift through the elements that make each situation unique and focus on the shot keys in each position gives us a glimpse into what the player needs to be thinking about once good habits and knowledge development give them the essential tools.

Application of knowledge is wisdom. Without ongoing wise decision making, gifted, knowledgeable players will never achieve their potential. Finding the shot keys in each situation by bringing it back to its uniqueness let’s us see the true challenges in even the simplest shots.

Tempo, timing, rhythm and consequences all play a part as well, including the larger sandbox of individual games, full matches and more; player lifestyles, habits, routines and professional planning/behavior. Players are more than a single shot, game or profession. Putting things in perspective from the smallest details in a shot to the panorama of our place in the universe or the entirety of time offer different contexts each with its own hierarchy of what is important. Shot keys are just that. At the table, bringing all of your skills and knowledge to bear, what are the key things to focus on while executing this particular shot?

With that in mind here is a link to a 10 ball match with Jeremy Jones commenting. Imagine how to take your mind at the table into the level of awareness, considering each of the unique situational factors and listen as Jeremy gives you a glimpse into the world of "shot keys".
https://youtu.be/G2UiE11iZ3U